User talk:Pbb72
Welcome Hi, welcome to HTML & CSS Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User:Pbb72/oasis.css page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Make sure you check out the policies set up for this wiki before you start editing. Thank you for joining us and happy editing! -- Jesdisciple (Talk) 22:34, February 15, 2011 You are free to remove this message anytime you want. Elements versus tags As expected, here are my links on this topic: * my original treatise * fewer relevant words, in tutorial format * Template:Tag and its less useful sibling Template:Element are for standardizing the format. The Element template is designed after the common usage here, not the correct one. The idea is to get all mentions of tags (and elements) to use the template, then the format can adjust to the whims of consensus if necessary. Of course this has implications for site performance; I haven't had anyone to discuss alternatives with yet. * Visual editing comes somewhat close to discussing this issue; I'd be happy to have you contribute there as well. --Jesdisciple (talk) 22:37, February 16, 2011 (UTC) Edits to html Hello again! I'm reading two HTML specs (or rather, the spec and the draft) trying to understand your edits to html. I know that in practice browsers don't require the tag but cannot yet verify your claim that it's officially optional. Nor do I understand the significance of comments in all of this. In general, I think we should stick with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, although I don't expect to entirely match them until we are much larger, as for now the generation of content is far more important than peppering it with needed. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:08, March 4, 2011 (UTC) : Ah, I actually put the citation in before I saw your message! Here is the source for HTML5 with mention of the comments: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#optional-tags, and the source for HTML 4: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-HTML. I agree with you on verifiability, however I don't think we need to cite things that are mentioned under "External links", right? (In other words, I don't think we need to cite that the tags are optional for HTML 4, since that is mentioned in the document behind the link "The HTML element in HTML 4.01", but the info for HTML5 is not in the linked section, so that should be cited.) Do you agree? --Pbb72 19:55, March 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh, thanks. I still don't understand why they even mention the comments. I guess that matters if you're traversing the DOM and extracting metadata from comment nodes... *shrug* ::As for citing a link that's already in the 'External links' section, I could go either way. Somehow I missed the "optional" on HTML 4.01, yet it was staring right at me. I'd be willing to leave that decision for a later time when we have a larger community. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:15, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, I know that reading (and more importantly, understanding) the specs is a very advanced task. Maybe we could actually make a tutorial on how to read specs? (Only half-joking here...) --Pbb72 21:26, March 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::A spec-reading tutorial is difficult for me to imagine... But if you want to make one, I'd suggest making it a chapter in our existing tutorial (tutorial/Outline). By the way, I'm still wondering whether we should move that to Wikibooks... Perhaps that's another decision that should wait for a larger community. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:44, March 4, 2011 (UTC) :::: ::::Thanks for working on this wiki. I've been gone for quite a while and I don't think I will return any time soon. I might check back once every 2 months or so, but I appreciate the fact that somebody's actually working on this! 03:03, June 1, 2011 (UTC)